Huckleby wrote:You say the bill is socialized medicine. The left wing says it was a corporate give-away.

Forced collecting/confiscation of money from "the masses" IS socialism.

Well, by this definition the collection of taxes is socialism.And you know what, I accept your definition. We have LOTS of socialism in our government and society. Social Security. Public Schools. FEMA. Police & Fire.

We need more socialism in health care, free enterprise alone is hopeless in this arena.

Tiggs wrote:

The Repubicans did a good job of drumming-up fear. The Democrats did not have 60 votes for reform in the Senate.

So even when the democrats themselves didn't buy into obama/pelosi care, it's still the republicans fault?

85% of Democrats bought into health reform. But even that is not enough when 0% of Republicans are behind it.I blame the Republicans for their dishonest representation of the health care bill. But I certainly don't blame them for opposing it. I understand why the health care bill is anethma to them, it institutionalizes a target of of universal health care with the Feds playing a key role.The issue of universal health care has to be decided before the Dems and Republicans can cooperate in a meaningful way.

The lost souls in this battle are the leftists who don't get what is at stake.

Tiggs wrote:

You can't get a really good health care bill with just Democrats

Why not? they had a filibuster proof majority?

Although the Republicans are wrong to oppose universal health care, they have many good ideas otherwise. The Dems want to remove the Tax deduction for Health Saving Accounts, that is dumb. The House Dems wanted to pay for health care expansion with just a tax on the wealthy, which is extremely unwise. Tort reform is needed. The Republicans are more willing to tax health care benefits, which is a painful but necessary step to expanding coverage and moving our country off of employer-based health care. The Republicans are certainly needed to get a grip on Medicare spending, one party can't possibly take those difficult votes.

Tiggs wrote: Could it be that most Americans are satisfied with their healthcare?

Yes, very true. Which is why the Dems did a good job of building upon the existing system. The health care bill is paradoxical. IT is both revolutionary (in expanding coveraging, creating insurance exchanges) and deeply conservative in solidifying the role and viability of private insurance.A lot of people are going to be screwed in the coming years if this reform tanks. Employers are going to increasingly drop insurance. The individual market will be too expensive for people who lose coverage at work.

gargantua wrote:Oh, David, where is your reading comprehension? He said "establishment of health care as a right...". If it was already in the Constitution, it would logically not need establishing, would it?

Since you brought up the Constitution, where does it say people are entitled to Social Security? By your logic, if it doesn't, it ought to be abolished.

Where is your grammar? If you had wanted to advocate that health care ought to be established as a right you would have said "establishing health care as a right" or "to establish health care as a right." As it is, you said "the establishment of ..." suggesting that it was established.

There is no constitutional guarantee of Social Security. That does not mean that it can't be provided, barring a specific prohibition.

Ninth Amendment"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to privacy is protected under the penumbra of the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

Huckleby wrote:The people of Massachusetts have a high satisfaction level with their mandate system.

Wow,that's interesting. The candidate that said she was for pelosi/obamacare was trounced while the one stating he'd vote against it won by a landslide.So, what can you provide as any sort of "proof" as to your statement?

Another third was money sent to states to prevent widespread layoffs of local government employees. Even if this money didn't create jobs in WI, it likely prevented the loss of jobs for teachers, police, DMV employees, etc.

I didn't know that "government jobs saved" was a goal we all should strive for.Weird stuff these days.

The final third of the spending was on projects by private contractors. Rebuilding bridges, etc.

"Infrastructure" is only slightly more productive than government. But at least it does something other than create chaos. Ever see roads being built? 3 machines, 5 workers or the like. At what cost per mile? (this is why mass transit in anything but very large, highly dense cities is a fraud/conjob).

Manufacturing it THE best job/income multiplier.But president barry soetoro/obama is just another in the long line of presidents that support nafta/cafta, the shipping of jobs offshore and the drawing in of people to work for less wages at jobs that can't be shipped away.

[I don't believe you know whether any of these three parts of the stimulus did or did not save jobs in WI.[/quote]Does anyone?The whole "jobs saved" is a complete conjob and those parroting it are fools/conjobs. I made sure I drank 2 cups of coffee each day but saturday ever since barry soetoro became president as I knew that would save jobs. I know it saved a lot of jobs. It was my coffee habit that saved the jobs, not barry's billion/trillion dollar spending. And you can't prove it any different.

Huckleby wrote:Well, by this definition the collection of taxes is socialism.And you know what, I accept your definition. We have LOTS of socialism in our government and society. Social Security. Public Schools. FEMA. Police & Fire.

And I agree.However, liberal/progressives keep adding and adding things "in the public good" in their quest to make everyone live in a fabian world.

We need more socialism in health care, free enterprise alone is hopeless in this arena.

Ummmm....how do you figure?The VA is about the worst health care system overall and is the most rife with waste and fraud. Private systems have far better care, better facilities, etc. I know, I've been to both. Just today matter of fact...

Your socialism is what's killing hospitals and driving up insurance rates. All the uninsured are causing a lot of financial losses that's gotta be paid by someone--those that have insurance policies and taxpayers.How about, instead of letting anyone and everyone into this country that wants to be here and get free health care paid for by us, how about we actually close the door until we get out own financial/economic house in order?

85% of Democrats bought into health reform. But even that is not enough when 0% of Republicans are behind it.

Yet republicans were supposed to support a bill that they weren't allowed to give any input on? Are you serious?

I blame the Republicans for their dishonest representation of the health care bill.

Ummm.....which one? President barry soetoro/obama wanted his bill passed....but I didn't know the exec wrote laws. I thought it was congress that did.Which bill are you talking about? Weren't there 5 different "obamacare" bills?

This reminds me of all the "corporate welfare for the rich" bills being passed by the democrat congress. No one read any of it. Sections were still being given out at 3am the eve of the vote.All congress should be fired for that, but people still want to split hairs over BS issues.

Although the Republicans are wrong to oppose universal health care, they have many good ideas otherwise.

In your opinion.Most americans know how the government functions, so they don't want to have their health care ran like DMV or rationed, with--yes, "death panels".

I think the way it was talked about, taxing insurance plans, fining those w/o insurance, having "acceptable" plans, etc. are all just devices to push people into government health care.With the exception of unions, congress and the like that have cadillac plans.

Employers are going to increasingly drop insurance.

that's what they want. They want to force most people onto the government health care plan.

The individual market will be too expensive for people who lose coverage at work.

Huckleby wrote:The people of Massachusetts have a high satisfaction level with their mandate system.

Wow,that's interesting. The candidate that said she was for pelosi/obamacare was trounced while the one stating he'd vote against it won by a landslide..

The health insurance bill is very much patterned after the system pioneered in Massachussets. The system of mandates plus subsidies has achieved 96% coverage in MA. The plan was enacted under Mitt Romney's governorship with support from Sen. Kennedy. Scott Brown voted for the mandate system when he was in the MA State Senate.

The people of MA have little incentive to support a national system like they have enacted. The Republicans successfully argued that they would be subsidizing states that currently do not have universal coverage. (Its not clear if this is true.)

Tiggs wrote:So, what can you provide as any sort of "proof" as to your statement?

I couldn't find the statistics I have heard mentioned. Google searches with Massachusetts and Health Care are full of noise right now.

Cortez wrote: You could make the entire health infrastructure obsolete with the right kind of planning. There are hundreds of smart options available, very viable options. Plans could be put forth and service models constructed, implemented in target cities and expanded gradually - perfected on a small scale and phased in over time.

It sounds like you are referring to reforms for how medicine is practiced. You are describing ways to get better value out of our health care dollar. This will ultimately be the most impotant part of reform, but it doesn't address the uninsured or people with pre-existing conditions. (BTW, the health care bill makes a start on reforming the delivery system with a number of pilot progrms.)

Cost control alone isn't going to make health insurance affordable for all. If you want private insurers to accept people with pre-existing conditions, you need a mandate. Plus poorer people will need subsidies.The other option is for a government insurance plan like medicare. I don't see any other way to achieve universal health care.

Yes - better value out of our health care dollar (for one). It is the most important part, i.e. an insurance mandate = putting the wagon before the horse. Where's that going to get you? Right where we are, in terms of this bill. This bill's wagon got put in front of the horse. Big surprise it ran off into a ditch.

Huckleby wrote:Jobs were addressed by the stimulus package. What more realistically can the federal government do?

With $787 billion dollars? A hell of a lot. "Can" is the key word here. How many "jobs" did it create in Wisconsin? Zero.

...Another third was money sent to states to prevent widespread layoffs of local government employees. Even if this money didn't create jobs in WI, it likely prevented the loss of jobs for teachers, police, DMV employees, etc. The final third of the spending was on projects by private contractors. Rebuilding bridges, etc. The main criticism I've heard is that too little was spent in this area. I don't believe you know whether any of these three parts of the stimulus did or did not save jobs in WI. I would be curious about which of the three parts of the stimulus you would like to see more or less money spent on.

"Saving" jobs was never the point, especially not government jobs or union give aways - Democrats were supposed to create jobs. Never mind the massive fraud nationwide involving "created" government jobs where existing government leeches were just given raises. "What more could they do" you say? Corruption free stimulus might've helped their case. Give our money to government workers, give our money to unions, where does it end up on election day? They're paying Peter to pay Paul, so to speak. Enriching their supporters, putting them in a disproportionately favorable position compared to those of us who work in the private sector, and hoping these "tax cuts" (free money) they give me and all the other hellishly poor people will make them look better in November. The left might find the level of blatant corruption in the stimulus "debatable" but its plain as day to the rest of the country.

If union organizations are really feasible, it shouldn't take the government to float them. Among the missing headlines in 2009, "unions flee the private sector" - a majority of union workers are now employed by the government. I don't have to "defend" this position - denial is the only means available to reasoning individuals who want to believe the stimulus a) worked and b) was benign in its intentions. The majority stands.

Henry Vilas wrote:Article I, Section 8"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

You've quoted this section before. Be honest with us (and yourself) - under this interpretation - what actions by Congress couldn't be justifiable as "in the interest of the general Welfare"? Can you give an example? In my opinion, the considerable flexibility that these two words have developed since their inscription is quite extraordinary. Anything that is arguably "good" can just as easily be called "general Welfare", and therefore allowable within the limits of the Constitution. Your interpretation, if I understand it correctly, completely sidesteps the idea of a limited government.

Cortez wrote: Yes - better value out of our health care dollar (for one). It is the most important part, i.e. an insurance mandate = putting the wagon before the horse.

It certainly is logical to reform a system before dumping more people into it. I take a long term view on health care, so I would be satisified to delay health care expansion if I knew it was a firm commitment.

Cost control can only be done with the Dems and Repubs working together. The rub is that Dems & Repubs are diametrically opposed on the role of the federal government in health care. I don't see how they can work on cost control until that battle is decided. That's why the cost control will have to be done in the next round.

The other political advantage of expanding coverage first is that the increased demand on the health care system creates great pressure for Congress to cooperate and act.

It is not exactly clear what cost control strategies will work. The current reform bill has dozens of pilot programs to test approaches. Each of those is written-up in the bill, which help explains how it got to be 2000 pages long.

Henry Vilas wrote:Article I, Section 8"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

You've quoted this section before. Be honest with us (and yourself) - under this interpretation - what actions by Congress couldn't be justifiable as "in the interest of the general Welfare"? Can you give an example? In my opinion, the considerable flexibility that these two words have developed since their inscription is quite extraordinary. Anything that is arguably "good" can just as easily be called "general Welfare", and therefore allowable within the limits of the Constitution. Your interpretation, if I understand it correctly, completely sidesteps the idea of a limited government.

Boston.com wrote:LAST MONTH, the US economy shed another 85,000 jobs. It marked a miserable end to a calamitous year in which an estimated 4.2 million American jobs were liquidated, and unemployment rose to 10 percent. In addition, more than 920,000 “discouraged workers’’ left the labor force entirely, having given up on finding work and therefore not included in official unemployment data.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans who do have jobs have been compelled to work part-time or at reduced wages; many others have not seen a raise in years. But not everyone is having a rotten recession.

Since December 2007, when the current downturn began, the ranks of federal employees earning $100,000 and up has skyrocketed. According to a recent analysis by USA Today, federal workers making six-figure salaries - not including overtime and bonuses - “jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months.’’ The surge has been especially pronounced among the highest-paid employees. At the Defense Department, for example, the number of civilian workers making $150,000 or more quintupled from 1,868 to 10,100. At the recession’s start, the Transportation Department was paying only one person a salary of $170,000. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees were drawing paychecks that size.

Strange the angry public just "doesn't get" the genius of the 2009 jobs bill. Who'd have thought they'd actually be upset to see a ruling class of useless government workers propped up at their expense in the midst of a recession in the name of "stimulus". We're starving, they're buying our old houses. Brilliance! Will they count it as "job creation" if we're tossed a few dollars to mow our old lawns whilst the new owners are on paid vacation?